ushima
Motherfukushima
You humans...
Motherfukushima
You humans...
General / Off-Topic Electric cars are stupid.
- Thread starter [PS4] Lorenzo Waringos
- Start date
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
gently caressushima
<snipped>
You humans...
I am not bothered at all but you may want to edit or face the wrath of the mods.
IME you can get away with the odd crap and what not but fear you may have crossed a line there.
Ten terrawatt hours a year doesn't seem that immense, given the expansiveness of the services this covers and their total revenue.
Cost per bit or per search is pretty minuscule.
Total primary and secondary costs for someone burning through a high-end dataplan on a phone in a room lit by LED bulbs is way less than the cost of watching a small CRT TV in a room lit by incandescent ones. Hour for hour spent in front of a screen today is a much lower environmental impact than it was twenty or thirty years ago.
Google has been purchasing 100% renewable energy for two or three years now.
Ecosia is mostly a Bing front-end and Microsoft has been a bit slower on switching to renewable energy sources than Google.
The actual searches are performed via Bing.
Where do Ecosia's search results come from?
Ecosia's search results and search ads are powered by Microsoft Bing. We use Bing's search technology, enhanced with Ecosia's own algorithms. Bing is Microsoft's own search and it was launched in J...
ecosia.zendesk.com
It's impractical to run an effective search engine with the resources available to a smaller player. All of the search engines that work well use Google, Bing, or a tiny handful of others.
You make it sound as if microsoft would be the main initiator or supporter of Ecosia, which I doubt. But feel free and prove me wrong.
I'm not quite sure how my statement could be interpreted that way.
Because Ecosia can't be fundamentally different than the infrastructures it uses to provide it's service.
Nothing.
It's still using Microsoft's datacenters to power the searches and there is little that could be done to make the searches more efficient by Ecosia.
Google's made a big deal about their renewable energy stuff and numbers are not hard to find.
Ecosia injects ads and uses that revenue to plant trees. They aren't getting any revenue from me because I run an aggressive ad blocker and even if they were, they can't possibly have zero overhead.
If Ecosia is no more efficient than the search engine they themselves use, and less than 100% of their ad revenue goes to planting trees, am I not simply better off using whatever search engine is most convienent and donating money to have trees planted, or planting trees myself?
There are vegans, and than there are Vegans.
The first kind: vegans - you don't know that they're vegans and if/when you find out, it can surprise you - often prompting the words "oh - I didn't know you were a vegan". I'm all for that.
Then there's the second kind: Vegans - with a capital "V" (sometimes also in bold text) - you already know, by golly, that these people are Vegans, Yes indeed you do know it. Why?? Because they tell you. Multiple times. Then they evangelise about it. And also criticise when you order a steak...
![[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/234/234580.jpg?1612617334){kind=avatar}
For 6 months.
For double the amount of homes they have. So if they do the same over the next 6 months, they've generated 2 years worth of power in 1.
If they handle this well, they could very well run the entire on clean energy in the near future.
Your statement didn't include a time-frame, so IMHO Scotland meets the criteria of your statement. ^^
It's your carbon dioxide emissions you should be worried about!Someone had to contribute to the GDP
Most of our planet is either too hot or too cold for habitation & the rest is on a climatic knife-edge.
if we are not careful then the apocalyptic writing of Nevil Shute's 'On The Beach' will be prophetic - the novel portrays an Australian town that awaits an inevitable death carried on the prevailing winds; the final scene shows the streets deserted & a tattered dirty banner on the church is flapping in the dust & howling wind, "Repent! There is still time, Brother" - it serves to mock all of our illusions of solipsism, self-esteem & indeed, our species' arrogance. The underlying subtext is that nature might not even know we were here! Beautiful, I urge you to read it.
Anyway back to the usual acerbic narrative
: those Extinction Rebellion twonks (not my first choice of invective noun) protest in London clogging up the streets causing havoc, all while the gluttonous US, China & India, with their new industrial revolutions, flagrantly pump out CO2 like <ahem> there's no tomorrow!& just wait til the disposable incomes trickle down fully to the working & middle classes...then check out the subsequent demands energy guzzling consumer durables, cars & air travel.
The US pumps out 15 times as much as the UK, China 30 times & India 7 times & they've only just got started.
Phone - 'could be some uncharacteristic errors ^
Those ad blockers are preventing a lot of wasteful web traffic and may ultimately be a more efficient way to mitigate the sort of secondary costs you originally mentioned, as well as preserve the environment.
I don't quite buy the 100% renewable shizzle. Not by a long chalk.
The energy required to manufacture some of this renewable energy collection equipment has, sometimes, exceeded the total energy collection that a renewable source "machine" collects in its entire life-span.
For example - the steel reinforced concrete base of a wind turbine is such a massive energy sink that, depending on the original energy source, contributes to a net positive carbon footprint over the life of the wind turbine, rather than a net negative carbon footprint.
I am not defending developing countries - even though it may sound like i am about to............... but shoe on the other foot I can imagine some people living in developing countries who are just starting to ramp up their infrastructure and thus pollution may be thinking about how it is easy for already developed countries to take the high road when they already have their infrastructure in place....... Those countries did their polluting 50 years ago, and it is easier for them to try to play world police.
Dont get me wrong, over all that does not mean we should just give up and let the environment go to hell,...... but perhaps it is the responsibility of the already developed countries to actually help other countries with either expertise, equipement or dare i say even money - so long as spent in a certain manner to reduce their footprint as well as still allowing their own modernisation.
of course that does not excuse the already developed nations who continue to pollute.
I dont really have an answer...... I hate paying increased taxes as much as the next person, I enjoy lifes luxuries as much as the next person and equally part of me does think "what is the point in me being clean when china and india and the US create so much that it is worthless!".
ultimately people en mass wont change their ways voluntarily, it needs government intervention world wide to force the issue, with sticks to stop people using inefficient and single occupancy vehicles and carrots of a cheap and reliable and regular public transport as well as huge subidies on clean alternatives for general living. The thing is, if any government suggested something too radical, someone else would just step up and say "no!!" and they would get voted in.
It is easy to believe someone in power tell you it is all FUD, there is no proof and to carry on as you were, esp if that means you get to live an easier life.
And yet Nuclear is the safest or one of the safest energy production means currently available in terms of deaths per energy unit.
No though those disasters will cause more deaths and economic damage than the issues on the plant itself.
It doesn't but the fact is that it is cheaper, has a minimal impact on the environment, operates 24/7, doesn't need a particular environment (ie, you don't need a lot of sun, wind, river, etc.) and has a very constant energy output reducing the need of batteries or other forms of energy storage such as water reservoirs, did I mention it is really safe?
The only serious drawbacks I can think of is waste dispoasal and a limited supply of uranium though thorium is an alternative which needs no isotopic refinement and is more common.
Anyone else hearing Red Barchetta in their head?
People get behind the wheel of bimmers and Audis and become smug with their foot.
ELVs are in their infancy. Autos were wasteful ugly contraptions when they were introduced. 10 years we might not need lithium, or just go mine it in the Belt
Batteries arent the only power source of course. Technology like charge caps, micro reactors and mini fuel cells could power vehicles.
Oils done. I want to see broke Russian and Saudis. Ever see the tar sands in Alberta? Huge waste of water resources and hellhole tailings ponds eveywhere.
Only profitable when oil is 80 a barrel because it's tar and has to be cut with gas to go in pipes and not oil.
For those who say that the majority of the earth isn't doing anything that doesn't make it any less of our problem.
We should have a pool to see how long it takes for the greens to get voted in around the world.
Live long and prosper
Tidal waves and earthquakes can be affected by climate change as in accelerated erosion, desertification and the melting of the ice that raises the sea levels.
British Columbia has turned its economy around by supporting and encouraging alternative energy businesses like solar and wind mainly but geothermal is starting up slowly. They don't have all their eggs in one basket like Alberta does. Cons in Canada are just that, cons. Kinda like 45
Last edited: